DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 16 November 2022 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should any of claims 1-3 or 5-10 be found allowable, claims 12-20 will be objected, respectively, to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The textual difference between claims 1 and 12 is that claim 1 recites “dividing the height of the ramp surface by the length of the ramp surface to determine a height-to-length ratio of the ramp surface (
h
~
)” within the body of the claim while claim 12 recites the height-to-length ratio (
h
~
) in the preamble. Both claims are methods and both claims involve a height-to-length ratio (
h
~
) of the same scope. The remainder of the body of the claims are identical.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A method for predicting if a flow having a turbulent boundary layer (TBL) and flowing over a smooth ramp surface will separate from the ramp surface, the TBL flow having an inflow Reynolds number (ReL), wherein the ramp surface has a length and a height wherein ReL is based on the length, and further wherein the ramp surface has a slope that is everywhere non-positive along the length of the ramp surface relative to the TBL flow at the inflow end of the ramp surface, the method comprising:
dividing the height of the ramp surface by the length of the ramp surface to determine a height-to-length ratio of the ramp surface (
h
~
);
identifying a maximum slope magnitude of the ramp surface;
calculating a maximum normalized slope (
z
^
'
m
a
x
) by dividing the maximum slope magnitude of the ramp surface by the height-to-length ratio of the ramp surface;
calculating a critical ramp slope (
z
^
'
c
r
i
t
) as a linear function of the height-to-length ratio of the ramp surface; and
using the critical ramp slope to predict separation of the boundary layer by predicting the turbulent boundary layer will separate from the ramp surface if the maximum normalized slope is greater than the critical ramp slope, and predicting that the turbulent boundary layer will not separate from the ramp surface if the maximum normalized slope is less than the critical ramp slope.
Predicting the flow of a turbulent boundary layer using numerical analysis is a determination using the respective mathematical relationships and formulae.
Dividing the height by the length is a mathematical calculation to derive the geometric relationship of numerical design values.
Identifying a maximum numerical value of the slope magnitude is a mathematical operation on the numerical slope values.
Calculating a maximum normalized slope as specified is recitation of a mathematical formula in prose.
Calculating a critical ramp slope as a linear function corresponds with further mathematical calculation.
A step of “using” the critical ramp slope to make a prediction is at best mere instruction to “apply” the result of the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). However, here the determination being made is itself a mental process evaluation. Deciding the turbulent boundary layer will separate when the maximum normalized slope is greater than the critical ramp slope is a mental process in the form of an evaluation or judgment. The combination of a mathematical calculated result with a mental process is a combination of abstract ideas and remains judicially excepted subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the critical ramp slope is calculated as:
z
^
'
c
r
i
t
=
α
h
~
+
β
, where
α
=
11.82
and
β
=
3.8
.
The recited mathematical formula is an explicit recitation of mathematical subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 3 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The method of Claim 1, wherein the ramp surface is convex.
The convexity of the geometric object is a mathematical geometric relationship corresponding with a condition on the slope/shape. A mathematical description of geometric shape is mathematical subject matter in the form of the respective geometric relationship.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 5 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. The method of Claim 1, wherein the linear function is independent of the inflow Reynold's number, ReL.
5. The method of Claim 1, wherein the linear function is dependent on the inflow Reynold's number, ReL.
The linear function is a mathematical relationship. Whether or not this mathematical relationship is dependent or independent of the inflow Reynold’s numerical number, the mathematical relationship of the linear function remains mathematical subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 4 and 5 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 4 and 5 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 6 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
6. The method of Claim 1, wherein the critical ramp slope is calculated as:
z
^
'
c
r
i
t
=
α
h
~
R
e
L
γ
+
β
, where
α
=
-
40.06
,
β
=
3.8
, and
γ
=
-
1
10
.
The recited mathematical formula is an explicit recitation of mathematical subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 6 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 6 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 7 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
7. The method of Claim 1, wherein the ramp surface has a slope shape defined by a polynomial function.
The a polynomial function is an explicit recitation of mathematical subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 7 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 7 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
8. The method of Claim 1, wherein the ramp surface has a slope shape determined by one or more Gaussian functions.
A Gaussian function is a mathematical function.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
9. The method of Claim 1, wherein the ramp surface comprises an aerodynamic surface of an aircraft.
The numerical representation of the ramp surface corresponding with an aerodynamic surface of an aircraft is generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a field of use. “[G]enerally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” does “not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here in step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 10 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
10. The method of Claim 9, wherein the aerodynamic surface is aft body of a fuselage.
The numerical representation of the ramp surface corresponding with an aft body of a fuselage is generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a field of use. “[G]enerally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” does “not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 10 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here in step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 11 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
11. The method of Claim 6, wherein the inflow Reynold's number is in the range of 2*105 to 8*105.
The specific numerical range for the numerical value is further recitation of mathematical subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 11 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 11 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 12 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
12. A method for predicting if a turbulent boundary layer ("TBL") flow over a ramp surface having a height-to-length ratio (
h
~
), the flow having a Reynolds number (ReL), will separate from the ramp surface, and wherein the ramp surface has a slope that is everywhere non-positive, the method comprising:
identifying a maximum slope magnitude of the ramp surface;
calculating a maximum normalized slope (
z
^
'
m
a
x
) by dividing the maximum slope magnitude of the ramp surface by the height-to-length ratio of the ramp surface;
calculating a critical ramp slope (
z
^
'
c
r
i
t
) as a linear function of the height-to-length ratio of the ramp surface; and
using the critical ramp slope to predict separation of the boundary layer by predicting the turbulent boundary layer will separate from the ramp surface if the maximum normalized slope is greater than the critical ramp slope, and predicting that the turbulent boundary layer will not separate from the ramp surface if the maximum normalized slope is less than the critical ramp slope.
Predicting the flow of a turbulent boundary layer using numerical analysis is a determination using the respective mathematical relationships and formulae.
Identifying a maximum numerical value of the slope magnitude is a mathematical operation on the numerical slope values.
Calculating a maximum normalized slope as specified is recitation of a mathematical formula in prose.
Calculating a critical ramp slope as a linear function corresponds with further mathematical calculation.
A step of “using” the critical ramp slope to make a prediction is at best mere instruction to “apply” the result of the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). However, here the determination being made is itself a mental process evaluation. Deciding the turbulent boundary layer will separate when the maximum normalized slope is greater than the critical ramp slope is a mental process in the form of an evaluation or judgment. The combination of a mathematical calculated result with a mental process is a combination of abstract ideas and remains judicially excepted subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 12 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 12 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Dependent claims 13-20 are substantially similar to claims 2, 3, and 5-10 above and are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding the IDS dated 16 November 2022, the Washington University Thesis by Dawei Lu (2019) and the publication “Numerical Criterion for Incipient Separation of Turbulent Flows” also including instant inventors as authors are not published at least a year before the effective filing date 19 May 2020 of the instant application. Accordingly, neither is considered prior art for the instant application.
Razi, P. “Partially-Averaged Navier-Stokes (PANS) Method For Turbulence Simulations: Near-Wall Modeling And Smooth-Surface Separation Computations” Thesis, Texax A&M U. (2015) [herein “Razi”] abstract teaches “Variable resolution (VR) bridging methods such as the Partially-averaged Navier-Stokes (PANS) model fill the gap between these two limits by allowing a tunable degree of resolution from RANS to DNS.” Razi page 49 figure 2.24 shows the “set-up for hump flow configuration.” While Razi provides technology background of RANS and CFD simulation, Razi fails to teach a critical ramp slope.
US patent 7,251,592 B1 Praisner, et al. [herein “Praisner”] teaches a boundary layer transition model. Praisner column 2 lines 12-13 teach “An estimated laminar separation location of a flow separating from the airfoil is determined.” Praisner column 4 lines 50-60 teach:
For given operating conditions and airfoils (the size, shape, orientation and positioning/spacing of the airfoils of each row) a CFD simulation may then be run with the turbulence model shut-off in the flow region upstream of the initial target transition using the boundary determined by the fully turbulent simulation. Once run to convergence, Reθ and Reθonset are recalculated to determine an updated transition location. Concurrently, the boundary layer edge location is updated using the results of the converged solution. The CFD simulation is then restarted using the updated target transition location and run to convergence.
Praisner figure 7 and column 6 plot an empirical relationship between L/S and a Roberts model Reynolds number. But Praisner fails to teach a critical ramp slope.
US patent 8,200,459 B2 de Pablo Fouce, et al. [herein “Pablo Fouce”] teaches generating suitable meshes for hybrid RANS/LES modelling. Pablo Fouce column 3 lines 1-2 teach “modeling using RANS inside the boundary layer and LES in the separated region.” Pablo Fouce fails to teach a critical ramp slope.
US patent 11,188,692 B2 Chen, et al. [herein “Chen”] teaches turbulent boundary layer modeling with pressure gradient effects. Chen column 5 lines 60-63 teach “This approach enables the accurately simulation of flows around objects of arbitrary shape, including accurate prediction of boundary layer flow separations.” But Chen fails to teach a critical ramp slope.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “calculating a critical ramp slope (
z
^
'
c
r
i
t
) as a linear function of the height-to-length ratio of the ramp surface; and using the critical ramp slope to predict separation of the boundary layer by predicting the turbulent boundary layer will separate from the ramp surface if the maximum normalized slope is greater than the critical ramp slope” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 9 January 2026